[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: low post



>>Was Ainge actually involved in any trades in Phoenix? He was the coach,
>>not the GM. 

i am sure that any coach got some input into any trades, even tho he may not be on
the phone talking trades with the other party. I am sure any GM would need to seek
the coach's opinion as to what he (the coach) needs to get better, whether this
player is what he thinks will fit his system, whether he wants to give up this
player for that player, something along these lines.

>>From what I read, Bird wanted Carlisle to succeed him, but an ex-coach
>>doesn't necessarily have much say in who gets to do what. As to why
>>Walsh didn't pay attention to Bird's recommendation--well, what did
>>Walsh really think of Bird's coaching job? 

I think whether Bird is a good coach or not was not in the equation but his word
of recommendation should carry weight as he produce RESULTS with getting them in
the finals. And since you too agree that Bird is a motivator, not a x and o coach,
means he is a good people-evaluator. So why did Walsh not trust Bird's evaluation
on Carlise. My opinion is Bird was so "strong" in his recommendation.

>>I mean, Bird was primarily a motivator. Motivation skills is the key to being a effective coach
>>No doubt he understands hoops fairly well, and I think he can
>>see talent, both on the court and on the sideline, but he wasn't an
>>X's/O's guy and that might have made Walsh not take his recommendation
>>as seriously. Or, it could be for the same reason Stan Kasten went out
>>and got Rider over Lenny Wilkens' objections--he just doesn't really
>>know what he's doing sometimes. I think Carlisle will make a good head
>>coach someday, but I wouldn't mind seeing him season himself elsewhere
>>as an assistant for a bit longer. Can't hurt, might help. 

I am still in school of mind that teaches hot assistants does not necessarily make
good head coaches. Looking at how Bryon Scott go off on his nets after every loss
makes me cringe, He should have kept it within the locker room, it ain't helping
the team win by broadcasting your woes on the media. I guess this is inexperience.


>>Bill Hanzlik was considered a fairly hot coaching commodity too--is he anywhere now
>>that his Charlotte stint crashed and burned? I could see the same thing
>>happening to Carlisle.

>>Thing is...is it really such a good idea to stay "in the family" so
>>much? That's what landed us ML Carr as GM and coach. 

I think this ML era is all orchestrated to get our shot at Duncan. Imagine if we
have Walker and Duncan, can you see our next dynasty? I think it was a good long
term plan by Gaston.

Another evidence that it is orchestrated is the fact that ML is still employed by
the C's. Can you imagine that? Getting the worst record in franchise history and
yet still drawing a paycheck? I think it was in the gameplan to tank.

>>I don't mind Parish
>>working with the big men, but I wouldn't be hurt by Mike Gminski, Bill
>>Cartwright, Jeff Ruland, or even Larry Smith doing it too. Whomever can
>>get the point across best. Heck, even Kareem, if you can pry him from
>>west of the Rockies. And how much experience does Bird have in a GM/Prez
>>role? Not very much. McHale, maybe, so long as he promises no more
>>wink/nudge stuff. But I certainly would like a guy as GM who's been part
>>of the C's family before but is largely forgotten now--Wayne Embry. Or,
>>I'd take Jerry West, from a real rival family, if he was willing to come
>>aboard. All I'm saying is, just because Celtic players may have had
>>success on the floor, doesn't necessarily translate into success on the
>>sideline/in the front office. You point out your reservations about
>>Ainge, and perhaps correctly so. So maybe the C's should look for
>>someone outside the family who has actually proven they can evaluate
>>talent, either as a president evaluating coaches/GMs, or as a GM
>>evaluating player talent. If we get someone unproven, even a former
>>Celtic, we best not get our hopes up until they have conclusively proven
>>they know what they're doing.